The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

[Hockeycowboy]

How does this prove or disprove the trinity?

I think where to start is by seeing if the scriptures show that Jesus believed he was God.

John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” When Jesus says "I am" isn't he using the name of God as it was revealed to Moses in Exodus chapt 3 where Moses asked God for his name and God said, "Tell them that I am has sent you" So when Jesus calls himself "I am" the Jews knew exactly what he was implying and picked up stones to kill him. Is this one of the proofs that show that Jesus and God are one and supports Anthanasia's claim.

Just a question for you -- all of us -- to think about: if the Bible and it's writers really wanted to show Jesus was God, co-equal with the Father - why doesn't it call him, God's 'brother'? That's more of an equal term. A son is always subordinate to a father, in their relationship.

Why did Jesus have a god which was also Martha's God, known in Hebrew as Yahweh? (John 20:17) Who did Jesus call his "brothers", actually?

After Jesus' death....In their prayer at Acts of the Apostles 4, they addressed God as "Sovereign Lord"; were the Christians praying to Jesus? Read it, and you'll find out: No. They actually referred to Jesus as "Your (God's) Holy Servant."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Some nontrinitarian have quoted bibles that quote John 1:1 with a lowered capital G when describing Jesus. They translate it this way: "and the Word was a god" I think these bibles are poor translations because the interlinear word for word bible translates it this way with no article a and a capital G: This correct translation also supports John 8:58.

καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος. (Word.)

View attachment 40448

This does not say, "and the Word was a god"

Koine Greek doesn't have indefinite articles, like "a or "an". They did have definite articles, like "the". And "the" isn't there, before the second "theos".

Why do English translations add "the" @ John1:1, as in "In the beginning...."? It's not there in Greek! Sometimes, to fit the semantics of a language words have to be added, to aid the context.

 

[Samael_Khan]

In the year 367, the Christian bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius, was the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Some of the churches of the time were not teaching the trinity which caused problems for some of the churches. Why? How did Athanasius convince the people scripturally that the trinity was true? Some religions or nontrinitarian Christians today are growing in numbers. They use the bible to try to disprove the trinity and gain members. How is this possible? Do the scriptures teach the trinity or not?

Even though I am not a Christian, I am very interested in the topic. The Bible definitely is vague about the relationship between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as to me the Trinity doctrine seems to be reaching for straws and reading into the text while unitarianism makes sense until we come across scriptures that they have to stretch to fit their view point.

I have a problem with how the councils approached the matter in the first place. They wanted to define the relationship and the nature of God, assuming that they could indeed define it, even though the Bible doesn't lay it out that way. They use certain terms which might not even hold true. If the trinity was obvious then it wouldn't be such a controversial point.

Then there are two Trinity concepts these days, but people mostly only pay attention to the Western idea as opposed to the Greek Orthodox version, the latter which makes more biblical sense, but only if one reads text from a certain frame of reference.

What I see is that people from all sides have different views because their frame of reference regarding certain sentences is different. A person who read the gospel according to John first might reference all the verses about God in light of Jesus being God. A person who starts reading from Genesis might interpret al the verses about God in light of the old testament which says that God is one, thus favouring the alternate reading of John 1:1.

Regarding the councils, if I remember correctly, not all the bishops in Christianity at the time attended them out of distrust and only a few made the decisions about the doctrine of God and the Trinity.

It is a very vague topic with no real solid ground.

 

[blü 2]

In the year 367, the Christian bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius, was the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Some of the churches of the time were not teaching the trinity which caused problems for some of the churches. Why? How did Athanasius convince the people scripturally that the trinity was true? Some religions or nontrinitarian Christians today are growing in numbers. They use the bible to try to disprove the trinity and gain members. How is this possible? Do the scriptures teach the trinity or not?

No, they manifestly don't.

There are five versions of Jesus in the NT, one each for Paul and each gospel. Each of the five expressly denies he's God, and never claims to be God:

Paul says,

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
​

Mark

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one [...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
​

Matthew

Matthew 20:23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
​

Luke

Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
​

John

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”

John 14:28 [...] I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
​

To which we can also add:

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
​

Despite the many plain denials in John (there are more than just those above), it is sometimes claimed that

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
​

However, John's Jesus is one the of the two gnostic models of Jesus (Paul's is the other) who pre-existed in heaven and who created the material world ─

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
​

The reference is to that pre-existence, not to be God.

Another claim is sometimes made for

John 10:30 [...] “I and the Father are one.”
​

However. the meaning of this is made clear in John 17

John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.​

 

[Brian2]

Thanks for that, and he knew that God his Father revealed it to Simon Barjona. Just as we can't force truth on anyone.

I had not noticed that before, that Jesus had called Peter "Simon Barjona", just as Peter had called Jesus "the Son of the living God". There seems to be an equivalence there in what was meant. But yes, we can't force truth on anyone,,,,,,,,,,,it is something that is revealed by God no matter how many facts are given to people.
Yet of course, the facts are needed.

 

[Brian2]

What I see is that people from all sides have different views because their frame of reference regarding certain sentences is different. A person who read the gospel according to John first might reference all the verses about God in light of Jesus being God. A person who starts reading from Genesis might interpret al the verses about God in light of the old testament which says that God is one, thus favouring the alternate reading of John 1:1.

In the OT there are many gods, just as in the NT, but none of them are really God.
In the beginning seems to be when God started creating everything and at that time the Word was with God and the Word was God (or exactly like God or however you want to translate it)
The thing is that at that time only God existed, so the Word was both with the God and was God. (and all things that were made were made through the Word, with the exception of none---John 1:3)
Maybe this could be understood in the sense of the God being the Father and the Word being the "unborn" Son of God with the same nature as His Father. (and that would include being eternal)
Certainly in reading the OT we can see the concept of the Trinity there even if we might read it back into the text as opposed to getting it from the text.
Reading both the OT and the NT and seeing how Jesus is described in the NT and which OT passages are ascribed to Him can certainly help us see the Trinity in the OT.
In the Shema (Deut 6:4) the word for "one" there can be a "compound one", like when a man and woman are described as becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24) So God can be a compound one God.

It is a very vague topic with no real solid ground.

It can seem that way, but the more you get into it, the easier it gets to see that there is solid ground and that ground is on the side of the trinity. And it certainly is good to have solid ground to come back to.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello, @SLPCCC , hope you and yours are well.

I just thought I'd add something to this part of the post that was addressed to you....

And this is something I just learned about recently, with the help of a member, @tigger2 .....
If in John 8:58, Jesus was stating He was God, and those Jews knew that.... then why didn't they ever accuse him of saying that - or implying that - at His Sanhedrin trial the day he died?? The religious leaders there - the priests, scribes, Pharisees, etc - were looking for even false witnesses against Jesus! Anything! Yet, in all 4 Gospels, not once did anyone ever accuse Jesus of claiming He was God! Only as the Son of God.

Powerful evidence! To anyone.

Good point. I would like to add the following comments from
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament regarding Exodus 3:14. "Jehovah had seen the affliction of His people, had heard their cry under their taskmasters, and had come down... to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up to a good and broad land, to the place of the Canaanites; and He was about to send Moses to Pharaoh to bring them forth." There is more, but in context that He told Moses He is...

 

[YoursTrue]

I had not noticed that before, that Jesus had called Peter "Simon Barjona", just as Peter had called Jesus "the Son of the living God". There seems to be an equivalence there in what was meant. But yes, we can't force truth on anyone,,,,,,,,,,,it is something that is revealed by God no matter how many facts are given to people.
Yet of course, the facts are needed.

I found that true in my case. While I didn't agree with the preacher who first spoke to me, and I still don't, I nevertheless prayed after that to know God and He answered me. I know the answer came from God.

 

[Katzpur]

How does this prove or disprove the trinity?

I think where to start is by seeing if the scriptures show that Jesus believed he was God.

John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” When Jesus says "I am" isn't he using the name of God as it was revealed to Moses in Exodus chapt 3 where Moses asked God for his name and God said, "Tell them that I am has sent you" So when Jesus calls himself "I am" the Jews knew exactly what he was implying and picked up stones to kill him. Is this one of the proofs that show that Jesus and God are one and supports Anthanasia's claim.

Yes, the Father and the Son are "one," but Athanasius took it a few steps further than the Bible did. If the Father sent the Son, they can't be the same individual! I mean that's just a no-brainer. The Father didn't send Himself. He sent someone who was fully and absolutely "one" with Him in will and purpose, someone who would represent Him perfectly.

 

[Katzpur]

Just a question for you -- all of us -- to think about: if the Bible and it's writers really wanted to show Jesus was God, co-equal with the Father - why doesn't it call him, God's 'brother'? That's more of an equal term. A son is always subordinate to a father, in their relationship.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Muffled]

In the year 367, the Christian bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius, was the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Some of the churches of the time were not teaching the trinity which caused problems for some of the churches. Why? How did Athanasius convince the people scripturally that the trinity was true? Some religions or nontrinitarian Christians today are growing in numbers. They use the bible to try to disprove the trinity and gain members. How is this possible? Do the scriptures teach the trinity or not?

I believe the scripture teach the Trinity but not according to the Athanasian Creed, His views were outvoted at the Council of Nicea.

 

[Muffled]

My understanding is that this was caused by bishops trying to assert authority.

Both sides of the debate were engaged in political wrangling. Both sides were wrong to try to make everybody else conform. It would have been better to let the matter drop, but they just wouldn't bring themselves to be reasonable. My opinion. They were so wrong that no matter what they came up with it couldn't be right.

I believe it was Constantine who believed that Christianity should have one official belief. Fortunately the number that believed correctly were in the majority. Later the RCC claimed authority over the church. I think they may have adopted the wrong view of Athanasius. It wouldn't be the first or last time the RCC was wrong about something.

 

[Muffled]

In a word....NO!
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

THE Trinity was defined . . in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.”

Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I believe politics does not change the truth. The scriptures support the concept of the Trinity.

 

[SLPCCC]

Two points that I would like to address.....

If you consult the Tanakh at Exodus 3:14-15 you will see that God’s name never was...... “I Am”.


It is translated in English to mean “I Will Be What I Will Be”, meaning that God will BE whatever he needs to be in order to fulfill his purpose. Therefore any connection to John 8:58 is a gross error in translation...the church invented that term, to promote this blasphemous belief.

I see that different translations have different renderings of Exodus. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament quotes Exodus 3:14 as “The I Am”. Many of the Jews had used the Septuagint during the first century. So, the question is whether Jesus was quoting from the Septuagint or not.


The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s Greek The interlinear word for word admittingly translates John 8:58 as:

λέγω (I am saying) ὑμῖν, (to YOU) πρὶν (Before) ᾿Αβραὰμ (Abraham) γενέσθαι (to become) ἐγὼ (I) εἰμί. (am.) 59

And most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am"--the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX and the Watchtower has above.

I also reason, If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, “I Will Be What I Will Be” then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Blasphemy or calling yourself God was punishable by death. Maybe equating yourself with God as the argument goes with Jesus saying "I am," shows that the Jews understood what he was saying?

The question can remain as to whether Jesus was quoting from the Septuagint or the Hebrew. Wading through the arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is unnecessary if other arguments can support this one.

Professor Bart Ehrman of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. with degrees from Wheaton College (B.A.) and Princeton Theological Seminary states, “Jesus in the Gospel of John 8:58 makes a series of stunning declarations about himself, in which he indicates that he existed in eternity past in the glory of God and that he himself is equal with God.” Like the nontrinitarians, Professor Ehrman does not believe that Jesus was God. But he admits that when Jesus said, "I Am" He was saying that he was God and that is what got the Pharisees very upset and eventually caused Jesus' death.

In Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus responded with "I am" which hit a nerve and provoked the authorities to seek Jesus' death. They must have been thinking of when Jesus said "I Am" at John 8: 58. This is particularly revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts implies that. Anthanasia may have been using these arguments.

Another Historian, David Brakke, Chair in the History of Christianity and a Professor of History at The Ohio State University. studied theology and received his MDiv from Harvard Divinity School and a PhD in Religious Studies from Yale University. He states, “The concept of creation through the Word is inspired by how God creates in Genesis—by speaking. In John, the Word has become not merely God’s speech, but a being in his own right—a being who both is God and is with God.”

 

[SLPCCC]

I believe the scripture teach the Trinity but not according to the Athanasian Creed, His views were outvoted at the Council of Nicea.

I don't understand. What is the difference between the Athanasian Creed and being outvoted at the Council of Nicea. And what does RCC stand for?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I also reason, If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, “I Will Be What I Will Be” then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Blasphemy or calling yourself God was punishable by death. Maybe equating yourself with God as the argument goes with Jesus saying "I am," shows that the Jews understood what he was saying?

Because Jesus just told He was over 1800 years old!

Grief!

Again...if the Pharisees thought Jesus was telling them that he was God, then why didn’t they ever accuse him of that at his Sanhedrin trial?!!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Another point....

Like the nontrinitarians, Professor Ehrman does not believe that Jesus was God. But he admits that when Jesus said, "I Am" He was saying that he was God and that is what got the Pharisees very upset and eventually caused Jesus' death.

So Mr. Ehrman doesn’t even believe in the Scriptures! If he has no faith in them, why should anyone have any faith in his assessment?

It has already been proven that the Pharisees didn’t believe Jesus was saying that....otherwise, they would have accused him of that @ his trial!

 

[sojourner]

Yes, the Father and the Son are "one," but Athanasius took it a few steps further than the Bible did. If the Father sent the Son, they can't be the same individual! I mean that's just a no-brainer. The Father didn't send Himself. He sent someone who was fully and absolutely "one" with Him in will and purpose, someone who would represent Him perfectly.

But that’s what both Athanasius and the doctrine state: one God, three persons. One Person sent a different Person. Both are God.

 

[sojourner]

In the year 367, the Christian bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius, was the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Some of the churches of the time were not teaching the trinity which caused problems for some of the churches. Why? How did Athanasius convince the people scripturally that the trinity was true? Some religions or nontrinitarian Christians today are growing in numbers. They use the bible to try to disprove the trinity and gain members. How is this possible? Do the scriptures teach the trinity or not?

Not explicitly. But the divinity of Jesus and the HS is evident in the texts. And there are textual clues that imply that divinity.

 

[sojourner]

So Mr. Ehrman doesn’t even believe in the Scriptures! If he has no faith in them, why should anyone have any faith in his assessment

Because exegetical understanding and scholarship is not dependent upon belief.